The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America by Lenore J. Weitzman (The Free Press: $19.95; 504 pp.)

During the ‘70s, couples learned to talk about sex. During the ‘80s, couples must learn to communicate about economics.

Lenore J. Weitzman’s “The Divorce Revolution” is a partisan shot in this decade’s enactment of the war between the imperial sexes. For her, however, the coin of the realm is economic consequences. Her book’s subtitle, “The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America,” forewarns the reader of the partisan character of her exposition. As an instructor to lawyers representing clients, and as a professor, formerly at UCLA, and now at Stanford, Weitzman states the case and justifications convincingly--at least until we hear from the other side. The book is a convenient compilation of the author’s views and opinions, published and spoken, during the past decade.

Her presentation begs for authorship of a counter view on “unexpected consequences for men and children in America.” Recently, both sexes have recruited the “best interests” of children to their side, much as battlefield competitors used to claim God as a compatriot. The plain fact is that Weitzman is a good deal more interested in the interests of women, her side, than in those of children.

That the number of women taking the initiative to file for divorce is increasing seems, superficially at least, to be at odds with Weitzman’s most basic contention; namely, that divorce has not been economically beneficial for most women. During the former “fault” era, filings for divorce were about equally divided between men and women, sometimes as a courtesy for each to sidestep the implications of “fault.” But by the end of the ‘70s, during which many of the Weitzman statistics were compiled, as “no fault” blanketed America and as the etiquette of who filed became in consequence less courtesy and more intent, 63% of the filings for divorce nationwide were by women, according to the World Almanac. The prospect, as Weitzman sees it, of an economically grim future for divorced women does not seem to be deterring soon-to-be-divorced women from filing or inducing them to wait until improvements can be legislated or decreed. Or are the marriages these women are leaving simply so much worse than the consequences of divorce that Weitzman describes?

Those consequences do appear to be grave. “The Divorce Revolution” is a sober, disheartening revelation of the economic plight for most women who divorce. The book could conceivably inhibit a recourse to divorce as an easy solution for an unhappy marriage by reminding women that in most cases divorce has not been remunerative. However, the book’s intent is not to inhibit recourse to divorce. The intent is rather to encourage changes in statute law and case precedent that will make the immediate and long-range consequences of divorce that women are financially benefited and secure.

Non-Californians may be distressed by the repeated reference to California’s family laws. One of California’s major exports, affecting other divorced couples’ “balance of payments,” is legislated family law change. As one of the few states with a legislature meeting nearly full time every year, California debates hundreds of family law proposals each session. In effect, this state has rewritten the marital contract out from under most couples, packaged the promotional research, and peddled the combination to activists in other states.

Legislative debate is one means for the democracy to evolve standards and norms that influence personal conduct. Divorcing couples will usually take advantage of what they perceive the law will permit or allow. Meanwhile, busy citizens, struggling to survive economically, have little time to monitor the details of these legislative changes although the ultimate outcome will determine what they can preserve of their financial resources if divorce strikes. The proposal, and follow-through, of legislated family law changes is a blossoming cottage-busting industry in California and elsewhere. For that purpose, “The Divorce Revolution” will be a manual to follow, or combat, depending on one’s expectations upon divorce.

Redistribution of wealth is the intent many readers will discern. “Redistribution of post-divorce income” is the author’s more precise term.

Once upon a time, women were encouraged to wait for the death of a spouse to inherit property. Nowadays, however, more property and funds are transferred upon divorce in America than by will or probate. The implication is that toleration of a spouse isn’t necessary. You can have it now, rather than later. Divorce is the procedure. The legal profession is the transfer agent.

“The Divorce Revolution” represents a likely battle plan that could be of special usefulness in focusing and unifying the antagonisms of feminist activists and of women who are displeased with the consequences of their divorces.

Read “The Divorce Revolution” with an expectation of legislative debate and courtroom litigation in mind. The premise, the argumentation and the justifications for both forums are within this guidebook.

The Weitzman text stems from an initial and extensive discussion of “no fault” divorce and its consequences. “No fault” is a debatable topic which most individuals assume as a foregone procedure that may be the lesser of several evils of the “fault” system. Lenore Weitzman’s involvement began before the “no fault” era, and her research reveals the change of attitudes that occurred in California during 1969 and 1970. Her text explains how--before the shift from “fault” to “no fault”--larger financial settlements were possible if a divorcing spouse could attach fault to the opposite party. While she explains the perceived inequities stemming from that shift, I doubt that Lenore Weitzman or the divorcing public foresees a shift back to fault standards for purposes of economic gain.

A series of issues, constructed toward an objective of economic security, comprise the remaining development of “The Divorce Revolution.” Among them:

Alimony. Women are cautioned not to anticipate alimony since the decree of alimony is on the decline, and it is decreed merely for limited time periods. The text encourages a reconsideration of alimony to assure the sustenance of women.

Equality of property division. In the eight “community property” states, the economic fruits of marriage are divided equally. In “equitable distribution” states, very similar formulas prevail. But “The Divorce Revolution” cautions that equal division of the accumulated marital possessions can be unfair, particularly if one also considers the future earning power of a spouse.

The “new property.” “New forms of property,” as the author explains, constitute “pensions, professional degrees and other career assets . . . the capacity to earn future income”; “. . . the courts . . . are allowing one spouse, typically the husband, to keep the family’s most valuable asset for himself”; “. . . the spouse’s earning capacity is typically worth much more than the tangible assets of the marriage”; “. . . support awards that divide income, especially future income, are the most valuable entitlements awarded at divorce.” The rationale for awarding support decrees predicated on future income is a major thrust of “The Divorce Revolution.”

Legislated change in family law is taking place faster, seemingly, than criticism can be published in book form. Prior to the release of Weitzman’s book, the California legislature debated the issue of the earning differential of a spouse’s professional degree acquired during marriage and enacted a solution that partially ameliorates the situation that Weitzman criticizes. The legislature concluded that the “community” (a couple’s assets subject to division upon divorce) could be replenished by a divorced spouse for the costs of his/her professional education earned during the marriage. This particular solution is unlikely to satisfy the opposite spouse who prefers to receive a percentage of future income, instead, and to whom “The Divorce Revolution” will appeal.

Child support. Ongoing changes in the levying of child support have been enacted across the nation during the last year and a half. These changes, too, address some of the objections cited by Weitzman. In selected statistics, “The Divorce Revolution” portrays a grim picture of lack of payment of child support. However, this problem is not purely the fault of the divorce process. According to census statistics, 71% of mothers entitled to child support received full or partial payments; 47% received full payment. Yet, we also learn that only 59% of women with children under 21 years of age have been court-decreed to receive support. Much of this discrepancy in interpretation is attributable to the rapidly escalating number of single, never-married mothers for whom there is no divorce decree. While “The Divorce Revolution” effectively addresses the conventionally married and divorced population, future texts may dwell on the economic consequences for those who live outside the formal and conventional system.

Heretofore, the processing of child support increases and collections has been the second largest volume of family law litigation nationwide. But concurrent with creation of the Weitzman book, several legislatures have been independently scrutinizing the helter-skelter pattern of litigating and decreeing child support amounts, a pattern which inspired fear in paying parents and unrealized hopes in recipient parents. Calculations have now replaced expectations. The former system is being replaced with legislated formulas predicated on a child’s need, verifiable costs of rearing a child based on nationwide statistics, and the matching of equivalent child welfare payments, with some modifications permitted based on the paying parent’s former earning power and standard of living.

Conventionally married couples not contemplating divorce may be amused (or antagonized) by “The Divorce Revolution,” for the work seeks government sanction for a greater future economic security for the divorcing public, largely by one party at the expense of the other, than our social system has been able to assure for those who remain married.

The ‘70s opened with men and women accusing each other of a lack of satisfaction in sex. The ‘70s concluded with a better understanding of the opposite partner and a realization that satisfaction in sex could be achieved mutually.

If economics is to the ‘80s what sex was to the ‘70s, then “The Divorce Revolution” should be seen as an early polemic, the first half of the war. Weitzman has written one of those “gotcha” books that many women may admire and some men may resent. Meanwhile, we need a pause to acknowledge the economic plight of unattached women. And what we ought to look forward to later in the decade is a book of proposals for the economic benefit of both women and men, for there have to be better ways to ensure the economic security of women than the way that turns divorce into extortion. That particular way could give marriage itself a bad name.